Thank you, Chair.
On Mr. Redekopp's amendment about having the witness proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal attend the committee at the next meeting and why this is important.... Again, this is not partisan. This is just my perspective as a legislator. Right now, in the review of this bill, we are considering amendments that are allowable because of a special motion in the House of Commons that allows this committee to consider amendments that are far beyond the original scope of the bill. It went through the House of Commons.
These amendments are highly technical. They affect the scope in which citizenship can be conferred to people. To date, the debate on these amendments with officials has been about asking a lot of questions on impact.
The amendments that have been brought forward weren't shared with all members of the committee to start with. We have been trying to do our due diligence, step by step, with the officials to understand the impact. Also, we understand that at the heart of this bill there is broad consensus, but the amendments are broad.
My concern as a legislator, and why privilege has to be dealt with first, is this. If somebody outside of the committee, as the chair has noted, received these amendments in such a way that wasn't in accordance with the rules, and we haven't disposed of this and are trying to dispose of this, then it raises questions about the impact, the scope and the intent of the amendments. That's why privilege exists. It's not a “gotcha” moment. It's a safeguard to ensure that the legislative process is followed appropriately.
Mr. Dhaliwal, I'm assuming, is asking this person to come to committee so he can understand what happened. I would like to know as well. However, we can't go forward and continue to look at amendments that might be impacted by a potential breach of privilege. I think that's what my colleagues are saying here.
If my colleagues want to follow along in everybody's favourite green book—here's a plug for a bestseller on amazon.ca—page 154 deals with this issue. Just to clarify for my colleagues, I want to summarize everything that's happened to date. It starts off outlining the scope of what the chair can and can't do:
Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege....
This is what our chair did with Mr. Kmiec last week. That's step one. Again, this relates to the sharing of confidential amendments outside of the committee during clause-by-clause.
It goes on to say:
The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member's interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate, or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly giving reasons.
What I believe the chair has said here—and it's my understanding—is that this matter does in fact touch on privilege. That's what has happened today.
It continues:
If, in the opinion of the Chair, the issue raised relates to privilege...the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House.
I'm assuming that my colleague is inviting this fellow in the motion because it is of substance to our determination on this issue. Because the matter of privilege that is being considered potentially touches on the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, we have to dispose of this. The committee has to decide whether or not it's privilege before we move on.
That would be my interpretation here. I think we can dispose of this quickly, I really do, but that is why my colleague is calling for this. Let's get this person here, let's question him and let's dispose of the issue. That's where my colleague Ms. Kwan has a difference of opinion on what happened, but because the chair has ruled as she did today, it is now our responsibility to deal with this as the first matter in front of our committee. This is one of those moments where....
From time to time in committees, you'll see members of all political stripes using procedural tactics for one thing or another, but in this instance, that's not the case. This is a matter that materially impacts how this committee.... We're legislators. We're making laws. I'm giving an impassioned non-partisan speech, but we have to consider whether or not privilege was broken, because it has an impact on how we are debating amendments.
These are the sorts of things that lawyers look at down the road. We should make sure that in all of our deliberations of law and the legislative process, we are adhering to procedure so that we are respecting the structural integrity of how Parliament functions and works. I ask my colleagues to play it by the book on this one, I really do.
Let's get this guy here, let's dispose of this and then let's move on to the clause-by-clause review. I think that's reasonable. That would give everybody, regardless of how they feel about this issue, some comfort that we're handling this matter with appropriateness and transparency. That would be my preference, so yes to my colleague Mr. Redekopp's motion. We have to dispose of this.
Thank you, colleagues.